a > tae 
O97 
The Hast Indian Sugar-cane Borer. 
In a recent number of INSECT LIFE (Vol. Iv, pp. 95-103) I find a most interesting 
revieW by Mr. Howard of what is known about the Sugar-cane Borer, Dialrwa 
saccharalis, with a valuable foot-note describing the results of your examination of 
moths reared from Maize and Sugar Cane. 
The question of the specific identity of the borers which attack Sugar Cane, Sor- 
ghum vulgare, and Maize is a very important one, especially in India, where they doa 
great deal of damage to all three crops, and where therefore it is specially desirable 
to settle definitely to what extent the refuse of a crop of Sorghum (for instance) is 
liable to be detrimental to a crop of Sugar Cane or Maize growing in the neighbor- 
hood. 
We have reared a number of moths from Sugar Cane in Calcutta, and though they 
differ from each other a good deal in size and coloration I am strongly inclined to 
‘look upon them as representing merely the varieties likely to be found in one species. 
We have also reared moths from Maize and I think there can be no doubt as to their 
identity with the moths we have reared fromSugar Cane. In the case of the Sorghum 
vulgare borer we have not yet been successful in rearing the moth, owing to the 
numerous Chalcidid parasites (described by Mr. Peter Cameron as Cotesia flavipes un. 
sp.) with which the caterpillars that were sent to this Museum were afflicted. 
I am sending you a moth reared from Sugar Cane in Calcutta inclosed in this let- 
ter, and should be very much obliged if you would be so kind as to compare it with 
your collection and let me know what you think of its identity. I have picked it 
out as one that represents an average amongst the moths we have reared. 
It may interest you to hear that owing to the fact that it is much easier to get 
sugar-cane stalks than either maize stalks or sorghum stalks in Calcutta, we have 
used Sugar Cane for rearing the borers sent to the Museum, both from Maize and 
Sorghum. Maize borers were reared in Sugar Cane from the time they were com- 
paratively small caterpillars until they emerged as moths, and a sorghum borer (the 
only one of my set that escaped the Chalcidid) was reared in Sugar Cane from the 
time it was a half-grown caterpillar until it became chrysalid, when it was accident- 
ally damaged in transferring it to fresh Sugar Cane, and thus prevented from 
emerging aS a moth. I have not been able to notice that the caterpillars were any 
the worse for their change of diet, and this, I think, itself is a very strong indication 
that the same species attacks the three plants indiscriminately. 
It would strengthen the evidence, however, if it should prove that the American 
species is identical with the Indian one.—[E. C. Cotes, Caleutta, India, February 
19, 1892. 
REPLY.—Your sugar-cane borer is not the same as ours. It is a Chilo and not a 
Diatrea and comes near C. plejadellus Winck., which bores in Rice in our Southern — 
States, but differs in the very clear-cut terminal dark line between the black spots 
and fringe. The specimen is badly rubbed, aud its exact specific position can not 
be determined with certainty. It is possible it may be identical with Chilo infusca- 
tellus Snell., which infests Sugar Cane in Java. Better specimens are greatly de- 
sired for further study and also specimens of the larva. 
Without doubt you are perfectly right in assuming that the borers in Sugar Cane, 
Sorghum, and Maize are all the same, and it is interesting to know that at least 
one other Crambid agrees with D. saccharalis in this particular.—[ March 28, 1892.] 
€ 
Florida Wax Scale on LeConte Pear. 
I cut the inclosed twigs and leaves from a LeConte Pear tree. Kindly inform me 
as to what kind of disease the tree has and what treatment is required for it.—[Her- 
bert J. Pratt, Florida, May 30, 1892. 
REPLY.—* * * The Bark-louse, which you found upon your LeConte pears, is 
the so-called Florida Wax Scale (Ceroplastes floridensis). This insect has never be- 
771—No. 11 4 
f<w 
Oeste 8 ope ee 
